Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess junit4 is extra motivation for us to stick a beta of that
out soon.
All we need is a release plan to vote on as well as a release manager ;-)
We discussed where this task would go (antlib under ant vs. antlib
at junit.org), and what the stability/redist implications would
be. junit uses java which is very backwards compatible, though
ant1.7 improves some things. Putting it in with junit4 gives it a
tighter coupling to junit.
I think the consensus was that the junit CVS repository (on
sourceforge) is the place to do this,
I agree, if only sf's CVS was reliable.
It's been functional for 30+ hours now. When last it went down (monday)
they did put a note in their status log, albeit on tuesday.
my concern is not the availability of CVS, but the quality of the
filesystem. I hope when they rebuilt the disks they moved on from ext2
filesys.
1. Who wants to help work on a new junit task?
count me in.
(2) what should it do?
-Everything in <junit>,
At least most of it.
what would you drop?
For reference, these are the presets I use for testing. I always give a
default timeout, even if it is hours long, because automated build tools
dont notice hangs and can run for days without giving up
<presetdef name="junit" uri="${core.uri}">
<junit printsummary="no"
fork="true"
includeantruntime="true"
showoutput="true"
>
<jvmarg value="-ea"/>
<jvmarg value="-esa"/>
<!-- #Tests take system property parameters -->
<!-- #Formatters for capture and display -->
<formatter type="xml"/>
<formatter type="brief" usefile="false"/>
</junit>
</presetdef>
<!-- reporting wrapper -->
<macrodef name="test-report" uri="${core.uri}">
<attribute name="data"/>
<attribute name="reports"/>
<attribute name="failed"
default="a.property.that.had.better.never.be.set"/>
<sequential>
<junitreport todir="@{data}">
<fileset dir="@{data}">
<include name="TEST-*.xml"/>
</fileset>
<report format="frames" todir="@{reports}"/>
</junitreport>
<fail if="@{failed}">Unit tests failed see @{reports}</fail>
</sequential>
</macrodef>
3. enhancements to junit
-a method "isFailure" on the assertion failure classes, for
checking (through reflection in ant) for failures vs errors.
Yes, that would be handy. But they shouldn't have dropped the
difference between errors and failures in the first place.
well, you can add that to the wish list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
